mouse_drift

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that movements are random, time-bounded, and intended to generate mouse history for anti-bot purposes. It could add more detail about whether any click is performed or what happens when the drift completes, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then explains the intended use case. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no required arguments, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, why it exists, and when to run it. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance about return behavior or side effects, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters, including defaults. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies a concrete action: randomly moving the mouse over a duration to build mouse history. It conveys the purpose well and differentiates from direct mouse controls like mouse_move by emphasizing randomness and duration, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when this should be used: before an action, as part of CF/DataDome behavior analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mouse_move or mouse_replay, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.